Laurel vs.

Misa
No. L-409. January 30, 1947
Facts:
A petition for habeas corpus filed by Anastacio Laurel and based on the theory that a
Filipino citizen who adhered to the enemy giving the latter aid and comfort during the Japanese
occupation cannot be prosecuted for the crime of treason defined and penalized by article 114 of
the Revised Penal Code, for the reason (1) that the sovereignty of the legitimate government in
the Philippines and, consequently, the correlative allegiance of Filipino citizens thereto was then
suspended; and (2) that there was a change of sovereignty over these Islands upon the
proclamation of the Philippine Republic.
Issue:
WON persons who aided the Japanese people during the Japanese occupancy may be
prosecuted for treason?
Rule of law:
Art 114 – treason
Application:
A citizen or subject owes, not a qualified and temporary, but an absolute and permanent
allegiance, which consists in the obligation of fidelity and obedience to his government or
sovereign. The absolute and permanent allegiance of the inhabitants of a territory occupied by
the enemy to their legitimate government or sovereign is not abrogated or severed by the enemy
occupation, because the sovereignty of the government or sovereign de jure is not transferred
thereby to the occupier.
The words "temporary allegiance," repudiated by Oppenheim and other publicists, as
descriptive of the relations borne by the inhabitants of the territory occupied by the enemy
toward the military government established over them, may, at most, be considered similar to the
temporary allegiance which a foreigner owes to the government or sovereign of the territory
wherein he resides in return for the protection he receives and does not do away with the
absolute and permanent allegiance which the citizen residing in a foreign country owes to his
own government or sovereign.
Just as a citizen or subject of a government or sovereign may be prosecuted for and
convicted of treason committed in a foreign country, in the same way an inhabitant of a territory
occupied by the military forces of the enemy may commit treason against his own legitimate
government or sovereign if he adheres to the enemies of the latter by giving them aid and
comfort. Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code, was applicable to treason committed against the
national security of the legitimate government, because the inhabitants of the occupied territory
were still bound by their allegiance to the latter during the enemy occupation.
Conclusion:
This Court resolves, without prejudice to write later on a more extended opinion, to deny
the petitioner's petition, as it is hereby denied, for the reasons above set forth and for others to be
stated in the said opinion, without prejudice to concurring opinion therein.